The Kelo vs. New London case saw the Supreme Court expanding the governments eminent domain powers to include taking property and giving it to other private citizens for the purposes of economic development and enhancing tax revenues. It was a terrible blow to property rights in America.

And now, in perhaps a fitting end to the sad chapter in American jurisprudence, the City of New London is now using the property the fought to seize all the way to the Supreme Court as a dumping ground. Video below, and a letter to the editor noting the irony of the city using this particular property.

My wages are being garnished, the state revenue is taking over $200 a week out of my paycheck. But I am a seasonal worker. They even sent documentation to my employer demanding that they seize all my assets at work.

This is in Alaska and its about the state collecting money to pay for healhtcare for my son which was taken from me by the Office of Children’s Services (OCS).

This is runway over protection, which then cascades out of control, my son who has Aspergers does need help but instead he is the excuse for several local agencies to use him for getting federal grant monies.

When the fed grants dried up they are now coming at me.

So now my job is ending for the season soon and I seriously doubt I will continue to live in Alaska anymore, I already have work lined up outside the country.

I am quite sure this is happening to many many more all across America, our wages being garnished, our asset seized, all to pay for healthcare insurance and out of control liberal over protectionism.

Give me some hope that things will change, man will do despearte and foolish acts when he is backed into a corner while his life is being stolen.

Try planting trees, building add-ons, digging holes or putting up a fence without approval from some bureaucracy.

We do it all the time. I put out 29 fruit trees in February and asked no one. I used a big auger on a tractor to dig the holes for them and asked no one. We built miles of fence last year and asked no one. We built structures on the farm and in town without asking permission. I know it is not like that in a big city, but it is like that here.

I live in town and if I don't mow my lawn no one says anything to me. Not even my neighbors. But it is so dry this year that even my neighbors don't have much grass alive on the lawn. hee hee hee

"Free Men need not ask permission"

17
posted on 09/02/2011 5:42:59 AM PDT
by Texas Fossil
(Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)

...the City of New London is now using the property they fought to seize all the way to the Supreme Court as a dumping ground... a letter to the editor noting the irony of the city using this particular property.

That's not irony, that's In Your Face

They 'progressively' flaunted the Constitution and now they're just rubbing our noses in it.

My home is in foreclosure, my job is ending soon, my paycheck is rapidly disapearing and winter is coming in Alaska.

And I am supposed to just happily bleed off everything I own to keep some overpriced doctors and shrinks paid off?

And to just not oppose it one fraction of a bit at all?

I don’t think so. Perhaps some time in the future I will post a followup comment about my new successful life in another country after I had to flee from an oppressive out of control state that is so hungry for revenue they are willing to spend more money to pay for people to come after me, take away my tools, my home and my job?

Just so they can spend it foolishly and frivolously elsewhere or to some Unionized groups?

No, they read the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In the Kelo case the court refused to overrule the decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court that found the legislation authorizing the use of eminent domain in this case constitutional. Now we can argue the wisdom of that decision all day but good law or bad law the 10th Amendment gives states the right to make it. And absent any clear violation of the U.S. Constitution the U.S. Supreme Court shouldn't overrule them.

Yep, as long as a real property tax is levied on the property you live on, you do not own the property free and clear, you are merely a sharecropper or a renter with the landlord being the government. Don’t believe me? Stop paying your property taxes, and see how long you live there before the sheriff kicks you off the land you supposedly own. Homesteading and substinence living died a long time ago.

Did you ever read the Supremacy Clause? The United States Consitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. The CT State Supreme Court cannot override the Consitution. How about the 5th Amendment? In his opinion, Justice Stevens actually CHANGED the words to “public benefit”. What happened to 2/3rds of the House and Senate and 3/4 of the States to change the Constitution? This decision was and is indefensible and is probably the worst example of judicial activism in Supreme Court History.

The Supremacy Clause is only applicable in support of an enumerated power. While I don’t think emminent domain should be used the way it was in Kelo, I’d like to know what enumerated power the Supremacy Clause would be invoked in support of to make it applicable in this case.

Until I can get actual alloidal title I see no reason to buy real estate in the USA. Even fee simple is subject to too much abuse and is still functionally just renting from the government. If they can take your property for failure to pay property tax, THEY own it and you do not.

Certainly taking from one private individual to give to another is not public use.

I may not disagree with you but where does the U.S. Constitution say that? The Connecticut legislature passed a law saying that that under certain situations using eminent domain to take private property and turning it over to private companies constituted public use. The state courts said that doing so didn't violate the state constitution. Agree or disagree, it is the right of the state to define 'public use' that way if they want to since the U.S. Constitution does not define it for them. And having chosen their course the U.S. Supreme Court should not have overruled them.

Read the opinion, because that’s what he does. Do you honestly think that the framers of the Constitution would be in favor of government at any level, taking somone’s property, albeit at “fair market value”, sell it to another private entity, so that they may develop it? Do you think that a “buyer” building private offices, private businesses, and private dwellings, defines “public use”? Allow me to point something out. When conservatives and liberals agree that something is wrong, it usually is.

The tenth Amendment does not give states the right to violate the 5th Amendment right to Private property. Like I said, the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. period. Let’s say the state of CT passes a law saying that you must be 21 to vote. That is in clear violation of the 26th Amendment of the right to vote at 18. Are you saying that the 10th mendment would allow that?

I may not disagree with you but where does the U.S. Constitution say that?

By using the word "public" in Amendment V: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "

I'm pretty certain public means exactly what the framers meant - and not to fill the coffers by selling your private property, taken under the color of eminent domain, regardless of compensation, to another private entity, so you can get more tax money.

The city's use of eminent domain (public use) to get it was wrong on all accounts.

39
posted on 09/02/2011 9:53:18 AM PDT
by IYAS9YAS
(Rose, there's a Messerschmitt in the kitchen. Clean it up, will ya?)

The tenth Amendment does not give states the right to violate the 5th Amendment right to Private property. Like I said, the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. period. Lets say the state of CT passes a law saying that you must be 21 to vote. That is in clear violation of the 26th Amendment of the right to vote at 18. Are you saying that the 10th mendment would allow that?

Show me where the 5th Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution, defines public use and where the state of Connecticut deviated from that definition and then I'll agree with you.

I'm pretty certain public means exactly what the framers meant - and not to fill the coffers by selling your private property, taken under the color of eminent domain, regardless of compensation, to another private entity, so you can get more tax money.

It would have been nice if the framers included that definition in the 5th Amendment but unfortunately they did not. It's interesting to note that the Connecticut constitution contains virtually the identical phrase when it covers eminent domain, and apparently the Connecticut Supreme Court interpreted it in a way inconsistent with what you're pretty certain the founders meant. Speculation aside, absent a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution then why should Connecticut not be allowed to interpret their own state constitution? I thought we were against Washington imposing their will on the states, not for it?

I’m sorry for the circumstances of your life. I sincerely hope that somewhere along the line your luck changes and you are able to follow-up with a success story.

Many Americans go bankrupt every day paying for overpriced doctors and shrinks. It’s a crappy part of life. Consider this: I pay $350 a month for family healthcare that includes my wife and me. My company pays a share of my healthcare monthly - I don’t know the amount, but my wife who is an HR Director assures me it’s easily at least the same, but probably more than the amount I pay. Neither she nor I have a disease like your child does. Based on what you’ve told us I have to assume you don’t have a healthcare plan. While $200/week for healthcare for your child may seem outrageous given your circumstances, the amount doesn’t seem extraordinarily high given how much healthcare costs to the average American citizen. Who would you have pay for the necessary healthcare of your child?

Ordinarily I wouldn’t ask, but you opened the door: what was the rationale behind the state removing your child from your home? Alaska doesn’t WANT custody of your minor child, so, again, I have to make an assumption that there was at least one compelling event that caused them to take action.

Here’s the question I have to ask myself: is it fair for you to have to foot the bill for healthcare for your chid even though that child has been removed from your home by the state? Well, I guess my answer to that is yes. If said child had remained in your home, wouldn’t you still have to pay for his/her healthcare?

What I see is a father struggling to make ends meet, not able to afford the healthcare of his child, and then complaining that he has to pay for the healthcare of that child when the state removes the child for a reason not provided to us, the readers.

Just because the state has custody doesn’t mean his responsibilities as a parent end. If we were to look at this strictly from a transaction perspective, the state is ensuring the child is getting appropriate healthcare and billing the parent.

I don’t know if the child should have been removed from the home, we’re not given an explanation as to why (and even if we did get an explanation, it’s going to be one sided...), but based on this type of event occuring tens of thousands of times a year all over America, I’m fairly confident that the child is reasonably being provided for. Is it a good scenario? No, I hate that sometimes the state has to step in, but he is still the father of that child. As much as he hates Alaska for interjecting themselves into his family life, I’m grateful that SOMEONE is providing for the child.

Do you have healthcare? How much do you pay monthly? How much does your employer pay monthly? I’ll bet if it’s a family plan than the total is close to $800/month. Since he didn’t provide us any information about the state wanting more than $200/week from him, I have to assume that the child is being housed and fed by the taxpayer at no cost to this father.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.